Skip to main content
Glama

Seneschal Data

by io.github.Rotwang9000

Create a Monero/Zcash payment watch (paid via x402 at REST)

seneschal_private_watch_create

Subscribe a Monero or Zcash address to view-key-based payment monitoring. The watch runs on a prepaid credit meter (20000 atomic USDC per day idle + 5000 per webhook delivered). Creation at the REST surface (POST /v1/private/watch) is paywalled at $0.10 via x402 and seeds the watch with $0.10 of credit. Receiver gets HMAC-signed webhooks plus a 'credit' block on every body; a 'low_credit' warning fires once before the meter expires. Top up via /v1/private/topup, topup-1, or topup-5. View keys are AES-256-GCM encrypted at rest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesWhich privacy chain to monitor.
addressYesPublic address for the chain. Monero: standard 95-char base58. Zcash: u1*, t1*, t3*, zs1*.
viewKeyYesMonero: 64-hex private view key. Zcash: UFVK starting with uview1.
webhookUrlYesHTTPS endpoint we POST signed webhooks to. Private RFC1918/localhost addresses are rejected.
birthdayHeightNoBlock height the wallet was created at. Monero: scans forward from this height. Zcash: defaults to NU6 (3_042_000) if unspecified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses the credit meter rates (20000 atomic USDC/day idle + 5000 per webhook), the $0.10 seed credit, HMAC-signed webhooks, the 'credit' block on every body, the one-time 'low_credit' warning, and AES-256-GCM encryption of view keys at rest.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense yet purposeful; each sentence adds a distinct operational fact: purpose, credit meter, paywall, webhook behavior, top-up endpoints, and encryption. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (paid, credit-metered watch with webhook delivery), the description covers payment model, security, and related endpoints. However, it does not describe the response/return value, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational context (view-key encryption, webhook signing) but does not deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Subscribe a Monero or Zcash address to view-key-based payment monitoring.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like seneschal_private_watch_topup or seneschal_private_watch_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly covers the prepaid credit meter, the $0.10 x402 paywall at creation, and mentions the top-up endpoints, helping the agent understand when creation is necessary. It does not explicitly name alternative creation tools like seneschal_private_watch_create_crypto, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Seneschal Data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.

Resources